General Election July 2024
Discussion
SpidersWeb said:
Ignoring tactical voting, if there had been a straightforward proportional representation system then with two seats to declare
Labour would have got 219 instead of 412
Conservatives would have got 154 instead of 121
Reform would have got 93 instead of 4
Lib Dems would have got 80 instead of 71
Greens would have got 45 instead of 4
SNP would have got 17 instead of 9
and then small differences elsewhere.
So FPTP is a harsh mistress, but Labour would still be in power, albeit in a coalition with the LibDems to repel a coalition of Conservative and Reform.
Or even worse, a coalition of Labour and Greens would have been sufficient, but then would you see a mad coalition of the Conservatives, Reform and LibDems to take power?
Or even more insane if Labour and LibDems paired up, an utterly insane coalition of Conservatives, Reform, Greens, and SNP to beat them.
FPTP might deliver some odd results but proportional representation could deliver some utterly crazy governments.
Thanks for doing the sums and it makes sense but your first statement is a huge assumption that skews the numbers - I think there was an awful lot of tactical voting going on. Labour would have got 219 instead of 412
Conservatives would have got 154 instead of 121
Reform would have got 93 instead of 4
Lib Dems would have got 80 instead of 71
Greens would have got 45 instead of 4
SNP would have got 17 instead of 9
and then small differences elsewhere.
So FPTP is a harsh mistress, but Labour would still be in power, albeit in a coalition with the LibDems to repel a coalition of Conservative and Reform.
Or even worse, a coalition of Labour and Greens would have been sufficient, but then would you see a mad coalition of the Conservatives, Reform and LibDems to take power?
Or even more insane if Labour and LibDems paired up, an utterly insane coalition of Conservatives, Reform, Greens, and SNP to beat them.
FPTP might deliver some odd results but proportional representation could deliver some utterly crazy governments.
PR would completely remove that and would also likely increase turnout because a lot of people think their views or beliefs and therefore their vote are worthless because voting for a minority party won’t achieve anything.
uk66fastback said:
Can someone show me what Reform policies are ‘far right’?
The Tories are central already. And look what good it did them. There’s barely a fag paper between the two main parties as it stands.
Stopping “non essential” immigration.The Tories are central already. And look what good it did them. There’s barely a fag paper between the two main parties as it stands.
Scrapping net zero.
Banning transgender in schools.
Leaving the ECHR.
Tax relief on school fees.
Raising stamp duty to £750k.
Tax cuts for businesses.
These would all be considered right wing, some more than others obviously.
HTH
robemcdonald said:
Stopping “non essential” immigration.
Scrapping net zero.
Banning transgender in schools.
Leaving the ECHR.
Tax relief on school fees.
Raising stamp duty to £750k.
Tax cuts for businesses.
These would all be considered right wing, some more than others obviously.
HTH
He asked what would be considered "far-right" not right-wing.Scrapping net zero.
Banning transgender in schools.
Leaving the ECHR.
Tax relief on school fees.
Raising stamp duty to £750k.
Tax cuts for businesses.
These would all be considered right wing, some more than others obviously.
HTH
JagLover said:
robemcdonald said:
Stopping “non essential” immigration.
Scrapping net zero.
Banning transgender in schools.
Leaving the ECHR.
Tax relief on school fees.
Raising stamp duty to £750k.
Tax cuts for businesses.
These would all be considered right wing, some more than others obviously.
HTH
He asked what would be considered "far-right" not right-wing.Scrapping net zero.
Banning transgender in schools.
Leaving the ECHR.
Tax relief on school fees.
Raising stamp duty to £750k.
Tax cuts for businesses.
These would all be considered right wing, some more than others obviously.
HTH
robemcdonald said:
JagLover said:
robemcdonald said:
Stopping “non essential” immigration.
Scrapping net zero.
Banning transgender in schools.
Leaving the ECHR.
Tax relief on school fees.
Raising stamp duty to £750k.
Tax cuts for businesses.
These would all be considered right wing, some more than others obviously.
HTH
He asked what would be considered "far-right" not right-wing.Scrapping net zero.
Banning transgender in schools.
Leaving the ECHR.
Tax relief on school fees.
Raising stamp duty to £750k.
Tax cuts for businesses.
These would all be considered right wing, some more than others obviously.
HTH
If it was "remove all human rights from immigrants", or "remove all human rights legislation", then absolutely - but merely leaving an international agreement on human rights doesn't in and of itself mean much.
Sway said:
robemcdonald said:
JagLover said:
robemcdonald said:
Stopping “non essential” immigration.
Scrapping net zero.
Banning transgender in schools.
Leaving the ECHR.
Tax relief on school fees.
Raising stamp duty to £750k.
Tax cuts for businesses.
These would all be considered right wing, some more than others obviously.
HTH
He asked what would be considered "far-right" not right-wing.Scrapping net zero.
Banning transgender in schools.
Leaving the ECHR.
Tax relief on school fees.
Raising stamp duty to £750k.
Tax cuts for businesses.
These would all be considered right wing, some more than others obviously.
HTH
If it was "remove all human rights from immigrants", or "remove all human rights legislation", then absolutely - but merely leaving an international agreement on human rights doesn't in and of itself mean much.
Lefty said:
SpidersWeb said:
Ignoring tactical voting, if there had been a straightforward proportional representation system then with two seats to declare
Labour would have got 219 instead of 412
Conservatives would have got 154 instead of 121
Reform would have got 93 instead of 4
Lib Dems would have got 80 instead of 71
Greens would have got 45 instead of 4
SNP would have got 17 instead of 9
and then small differences elsewhere.
So FPTP is a harsh mistress, but Labour would still be in power, albeit in a coalition with the LibDems to repel a coalition of Conservative and Reform.
Or even worse, a coalition of Labour and Greens would have been sufficient, but then would you see a mad coalition of the Conservatives, Reform and LibDems to take power?
Or even more insane if Labour and LibDems paired up, an utterly insane coalition of Conservatives, Reform, Greens, and SNP to beat them.
FPTP might deliver some odd results but proportional representation could deliver some utterly crazy governments.
Thanks for doing the sums and it makes sense but your first statement is a huge assumption that skews the numbers - I think there was an awful lot of tactical voting going on. Labour would have got 219 instead of 412
Conservatives would have got 154 instead of 121
Reform would have got 93 instead of 4
Lib Dems would have got 80 instead of 71
Greens would have got 45 instead of 4
SNP would have got 17 instead of 9
and then small differences elsewhere.
So FPTP is a harsh mistress, but Labour would still be in power, albeit in a coalition with the LibDems to repel a coalition of Conservative and Reform.
Or even worse, a coalition of Labour and Greens would have been sufficient, but then would you see a mad coalition of the Conservatives, Reform and LibDems to take power?
Or even more insane if Labour and LibDems paired up, an utterly insane coalition of Conservatives, Reform, Greens, and SNP to beat them.
FPTP might deliver some odd results but proportional representation could deliver some utterly crazy governments.
PR would completely remove that and would also likely increase turnout because a lot of people think their views or beliefs and therefore their vote are worthless because voting for a minority party won’t achieve anything.
The current system is based on a handful of wealthy landowner chaps, hundreds of years ago, in an area picking one of their number to go to "that London" to represent their interests.
It doesn't scale up well at all to universal suffrage and modern communications.
How many new democracies would choose to use UK style FPTP now? Even regions of the UK didn't.
Edited by MC Bodge on Saturday 6th July 09:20
Sway said:
I'm no Reform liker but I really don't think that line, in and of itself, is "far right".
If it was "remove all human rights from immigrants", or "remove all human rights legislation", then absolutely - but merely leaving an international agreement on human rights doesn't in and of itself mean much.
Let's be honest "remove all human rights from immigrants" is the intention behind any talk of leaving the ECHR.If it was "remove all human rights from immigrants", or "remove all human rights legislation", then absolutely - but merely leaving an international agreement on human rights doesn't in and of itself mean much.
We can debate the extent around whether the word "all" applies but I don't think it would start and end with whatever the Government felt was needed to get people on the flight to Rwanda.
It's a way of othering a group of people.
And if we were out the ECHR do you trust a Government of the sort the electorate we've just exorcised to leave it at that?
It's very easy to slip into "well it's just prisoners" or "well it's just one more tiny right we're taking away" and so long as it's a group you're not part of what's the problem?
Is the ECHR perfect? Probably not I wouldn't claim to know lots about it.
Is there a reason that every country in Europe except Belarus and the Russian Federation are signatories to it? That probably ought to inform peoples thinking on it.
Edited by b
hstewie on Saturday 6th July 09:23
hstewie on Saturday 6th July 09:23bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sway said:
I'm no Reform liker but I really don't think that line, in and of itself, is "far right".
If it was "remove all human rights from immigrants", or "remove all human rights legislation", then absolutely - but merely leaving an international agreement on human rights doesn't in and of itself mean much.
Let's be honest "remove all human rights from immigrants" is the intention behind any talk of leaving the ECHR.If it was "remove all human rights from immigrants", or "remove all human rights legislation", then absolutely - but merely leaving an international agreement on human rights doesn't in and of itself mean much.
We can debate the extent whether the word "all" applies but I don't think it would start and end with whatever the Government felt was needed to get people on the flight to Rwanda.
It's a way of othering a group of people.
And if we were out the ECHR do you trust a Government of the sort the electorate we've just exorcised to leave it at that?
It's very easy to slip into "well it's just prisoners" or "well it's just one more tiny right we're taking away".
Is the ECHR perfect? Probably not I wouldn't claim to know lots about it.
Is there a reason that every country in Europe except Belarus and the Russian Federation are signatories to it? That probably ought to inform peoples thinking on it.
k, but as said, that line in and of itself isn't "far right".There are plenty of nations with strong and effective human rights legislation that don't feel the need for the ECHR. As it's a requirement for EU/EFTA/etc., membership, it's not an endorsement of the ECHR that countries have signed up to it.
Just like someone buying a load of Macans to get a GT3 allocation don't actually have to like Macans.
What stops a wave of right wing populism across Europe changing the ECHR, just as you're worried the Tories would have done with UK specific legislation? Nothing!
Edited by Sway on Saturday 6th July 09:23
classicaholic said:
I am really finding it hard to see how Starmer has a true mandate when he only increased Labours vote by 2% over Corbin. I can see why 40% of the eligible votors don’t bother, perhaps time for a change whe only just over 2 out of 10 eligible vote for the ruling party.
I think we are going to hear a lot more about our voting system in the coming months, some unholy alliances in the form of Reform, Greens and LD’s!That said, looking back at previous elections the story is pretty much the same, Cameron in 2015 being a notable example. I wonder if low turnout is a function of low trust in politics or the system?
Castrol for a knave said:
He comes across as a bit of a tt, and exactly the same as the people he's taking the piss out of.1/10
As a life-long Tory, we needed to lose this election.
We needed to lose because nothing else was shaking us out of an eight year obsession with doing what we had always laughed at Labour for doing - internally obsessing about ideology that nobody in the real world cares about
& pandering to an echo chamber of our own members.
We allowed Labour to nick the core Tory proposition of reaching out to the wider population, being pragmatic and reliably doing the things that people care about; making them better off, keeping them safe and secure, enabling them to run their own lives and giving them confidence that their children will have more opportunity than they had
We needed to lose because nothing else was shaking us out of an eight year obsession with doing what we had always laughed at Labour for doing - internally obsessing about ideology that nobody in the real world cares about
& pandering to an echo chamber of our own members.
We allowed Labour to nick the core Tory proposition of reaching out to the wider population, being pragmatic and reliably doing the things that people care about; making them better off, keeping them safe and secure, enabling them to run their own lives and giving them confidence that their children will have more opportunity than they had
Sway said:
Look, I get the potential subtext. Reform are toxic as fk, but as said, that line in and of itself isn't "far right".
There are plenty of nations with strong and effective human rights legislation that don't feel the need for the ECHR. As it's a requirement for EU/EFTA/etc., membership, it's not an endorsement of the ECHR that countries have signed up to it.
Just like someone buying a load of Macans to get a GT3 allocation don't actually have to like Macans.
What stops a wave of right wing populism across Europe changing the ECHR, just as you're worried the Tories would have done with UK specific legislation? Nothing!
I agree that written down lots of it looks reasonably benign and the sort of stuff you could possibly be persuaded to go along with.k, but as said, that line in and of itself isn't "far right".There are plenty of nations with strong and effective human rights legislation that don't feel the need for the ECHR. As it's a requirement for EU/EFTA/etc., membership, it's not an endorsement of the ECHR that countries have signed up to it.
Just like someone buying a load of Macans to get a GT3 allocation don't actually have to like Macans.
What stops a wave of right wing populism across Europe changing the ECHR, just as you're worried the Tories would have done with UK specific legislation? Nothing!
Edited by Sway on Saturday 6th July 09:23
I can find bits of their manifesto that sound perfectly sensible and that if I hadn't done my homework on them that I might find mightily persuasive.
What's far right about Farage and his candidates is when they get caught saying the quiet part out loud and you know what they really think.
Their manifesto will never say "we hate blacks Jews and migrants and we like fascists" but it's remarkable how many of them get caught posting it or recorded saying it.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sway said:
Look, I get the potential subtext. Reform are toxic as fk, but as said, that line in and of itself isn't "far right".
There are plenty of nations with strong and effective human rights legislation that don't feel the need for the ECHR. As it's a requirement for EU/EFTA/etc., membership, it's not an endorsement of the ECHR that countries have signed up to it.
Just like someone buying a load of Macans to get a GT3 allocation don't actually have to like Macans.
What stops a wave of right wing populism across Europe changing the ECHR, just as you're worried the Tories would have done with UK specific legislation? Nothing!
I agree that written down lots of it looks reasonably benign and the sort of stuff you could possibly be persuaded to go along with.k, but as said, that line in and of itself isn't "far right".There are plenty of nations with strong and effective human rights legislation that don't feel the need for the ECHR. As it's a requirement for EU/EFTA/etc., membership, it's not an endorsement of the ECHR that countries have signed up to it.
Just like someone buying a load of Macans to get a GT3 allocation don't actually have to like Macans.
What stops a wave of right wing populism across Europe changing the ECHR, just as you're worried the Tories would have done with UK specific legislation? Nothing!
Edited by Sway on Saturday 6th July 09:23
I can find bits of their manifesto that sound perfectly sensible and that if I hadn't done my homework on them that I might find mightily persuasive.
What's far right about Farage and his candidates is when they get caught saying the quiet part out loud and you know what they really think.
Their manifesto will never say "we hate blacks Jews and migrants and we like fascists" but it's remarkable how many of them get caught posting it or recorded saying it.
Prior to this election there was a whole quadrant of the political compass with no party to represent them. This election, that cohort was added to by half of the quadrant next to it.
When there's so much pressure (rightly) to 'just vote', even for the 'least worst' option - unfortunately I'm not surprised so many went to Farage, as for many people Reform truly was the least worst option, requiring as much nose holding whilst putting the cross in the box as those voting for Johnson over Corbyn, etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff